Search This Blog

Saturday, July 2, 2022

Is the pediatric hepatitis outbreak real? A top WHO physician weighs in

 It has been 3 months since the United Kingdom reported severe, unexplained hepatitis was sending young children to hospitals in unusual numbers. The initial handful of cases reported in Scotland on 31 March were soon joined by dozens and then hundreds, primarily from Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom. As of 22 June, the global total, from 33 countries, has swollen to 920 probable cases, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported on 24 June. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the same day that U.S. cases through 15 June numbered 296.

Yet after weeks of intensive effort by scientists, the cause of the acute liver inflammation that has killed 18 of the children globally and led to liver transplants in 41 others remains unclear. Adenovirus infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection or a delayed reaction to it, or a combination of both, are on the list of possible culprits.

Recent data raise questions as to whether these cases constitute a true outbreak. One survey published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in May found elevated case numbers in some countries, but another survey did not. Researchers at CDC this month reported no increase, compared with prepandemic levels, in pediatric liver transplants, U.S. emergency room visits, or hospitalizations for pediatric hepatitis between October 2021 and March. Nor did they find more adenovirus in stool samples from children during this period, compared with before the pandemic. 

To discover whether a true outbreak is unfolding, a WHO team led by infectious disease physician Philippa Easterbrook this week aims to launch a survey of hepatologists at pediatric liver units and intensive care units around the globe, asking for case counts and data from the prepandemic era as well as from recent months. Science spoke with Easterbrook last week.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What have you learned in the 4 weeks since WHO last reported in depth on the status of the outbreak?

A: The positive news is the U.S., the U.K., and Europe seem to have a declining trajectory of new case reports. … It’s reassuring. The working hypotheses [for what’s behind the outbreak] are pretty much the same [ones] that emerged early. … The adenovirus, and current or past COVID-19 infection, either operating independently or working as cofactors in some way together.

Adenovirus is still the most detected pathogen where there is available data: 52% positivity in Europe, 65% in the U.K., and about 45% in the U.S.

Q: What about the coronavirus as the possible culprit?

A: Currently [active] COVID-19 is detected in about 10% of cases … [that are tested by] PCR [polymerase chain reaction] in Europe and the U.S.

The information that is really missing is on past COVID infection in these children. … [That’s] difficult to get and difficult to interpret because there was so much COVID transmission going on in late December 2021 and early 2022. [CDC recently reported that an estimated 75% of U.S. children had been infected by February.] Most children will be positive [when tested for antibodies that indicate a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.] So, it’s difficult to prove a point there.

Q: How do you reconcile the CDC report indicating no apparent U.S. outbreak with the apparently large numbers in the United Kingdom and the ambiguousness of data from other countries?

A: We have always known there is this phenomenon of acute hepatitis of unknown [cause] in children. It is really important that we tease out: Is this just more of the same and because of greater awareness and greater reporting we are just seeing more of this? Or is there definitely something new—something above the background rate?

There are often not good records where you can easily pull out these cases that occur every year.

Q: Are new data expected soon?

A: Hopefully we will get some better information with the global survey we are launching soon.

A key result will be from a case/control study [in the United Kingdom] looking at adenovirus infection rates in children hospitalized with and without hepatitis. … If we see the same rates in those populations, [adenovirus] is just a bystander infection; it’s not likely to be causal. Or it could be a cofactor, but on its own it wouldn’t be causal. [The UK Health Security Agency plans to publish the case/control study results on 7 July, according to a spokesperson.]

Most of the [other] in-depth scientific investigations are inevitably going to be done in the high-income countries with a lot more cases, that have access to genetic sequencing, to host genomics, metagenomics, and toxicology studies. We are asking countries that are reporting cases to … please store samples. … [WHO this month] launched a minimum data set for reporting cases and separate guidance on collecting samples for laboratory testing.

https://www.science.org/content/article/pediatric-hepatitis-outbreak-real-top-who-physician-weighs

CLUES TO LONG COVID

 They span three continents, but a trio of researchers who’ve never met share a singular focus made vital by the still-raging pandemic: deciphering the causes of Long Covid and figuring out how to treat it.

Almost 2 years ago in Italy, pediatric infectious disease doctor Danilo Buonsenso, who works at Gemelli University Hospital, started to see children who, months after mild infections with SARS-CoV-2, were still short of breath and had crushing fatigue and other symptoms. He now suspects that, in some of them, the cells and tissues that control blood flow are damaged and the blood’s tendency to clot is amplified. Minute blood clots, leftover from the viral assault or fueled by its aftermath, might be gumming up the body’s circulation, to disastrous effect from the brain to joints. “In some patients we have specific areas where no blood flow comes in” or the flow is reduced, Buonsenso says. Is that driving their lingering symptoms? “I can’t say this is the truth, of course. But this makes sense.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, microbiologist Amy Proal can’t stop thinking about a second leading Long Covid theory: that the coronavirus keeps hurting people by stubbornly enduring in the body, even after acute infection passes. Studies have shown “the virus is capable of persistence in a wide range of body sites,” especially nerves and other tissues, says Proal, who works at the PolyBio Research Foundation, a nonprofit in Washington state. She recently caught COVID-19 for the third time.

Down under in Australia, immunologist Chansavath Phetsouphanh of the University of New South Wales, Sydney, is chasing a third lead, motivated by what the blood of Long Covid patients has divulged: an immune system gone haywire even 8 months after they’d first tested positive. He had assumed that immune cells galvanized to fight off infection would have calmed down over that time span. So, “It was a surprise that these cells did not recover,” says Phetsouphanh, who is working to set up an international Long Covid collaboration.

For each of these researchers—and many others exploring the causes of Long Covid—untangling the complex syndrome, with a still-evolving definition, is a laborious, step-wise process. First, they must show that a possible contributor—such as minuscule clots, lingering virus, or immune abnormalities—crops up disproportionately in people with Long Covid. Then comes the hard part: proving that each of these traits, alone or in combination, explains why the coronavirus has rendered millions of people shadows of their former selves.

All agree that solo operators are unlikely. Lingering virus, for example, could attack the circulatory system, triggering blood clots or chronic inflammation. “I see this as a triangle,” Buonsenso says, with each trigger potentially explaining, or even amplifying, the others.

A final challenge is identifying treatments that ease or reverse these abnormalities and help patients feel better. In the United Kingdom, home to a widely praised effort to identify immediate COVID-19 treatments, researchers are launching a clinical trial that will be among the largest worldwide to test potential Long Covid therapies in a randomized, statistically robust manner. But more such studies are needed—and time is of the essence. In May, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a review of the medical records of nearly 2 million people suggested at least one in five of those diagnosed with COVID-19 had developed conditions characteristic of Long Covid. Other studies have found roughly similar rates. Some recent research suggests the risk for vaccinated people is somewhat lower, but vaccination’s power to head off the syndrome remains uncertain.

For Proal and others, fitting the puzzle pieces together is of urgent concern. “I consider Long Covid to be a massive emergency,” she says.

Tiny blood clots

In Rome, Buonsenso is using a sophisticated medical imaging technique to better understand the role of blood clots. Called a SPECT-CT scan, it combines two different types of images: a single-photon emission computed tomography scan, which uses a radiotracer injected into a person’s veins to provide pictures of blood flow, and a standard CT scan for information about lung structure. By merging these, doctors can see which parts of the lungs aren’t getting normal blood flow.

So far, Buonsenso has scanned the lungs of 11 youngsters who have severe Long Covid, including irregular heartbeats and breathlessness during exercise. In six children, the lungs appeared normal. In the other five, the images were striking: Where there should have been bright oranges and yellows, signifying pulsing blood, one lung was nearly completely blue, indicating little flow. Buonsenso believes tiny blood clots or chronic damage to the lining of blood vessels may be impairing blood flow. He and his colleagues published their first evidence of such damage, in a 14-year-old girl, in July 2021 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

The knotty question is what to do next. Buonsenso’s patients don’t meet the current criteria for taking anticoagulant drugs that prevent blood clots or keep them from getting bigger, because no clots are visible on their scans. “You either say, ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t do anything outside of a study,’ or you are kind of a not-scared doctor with reciprocal trust with the patient and family, and together make a decision,” Buonsenso says.

With seriously ill children and their desperate parents in front of him, Buonsenso didn’t want to wait to launch a clinical trial. He and the families instead decided to do what they could. All five patients are now taking anticoagulants—which carry the risk of severe bleeding—under close monitoring.

He’s heartened by their progress. Several are back in school, playing sports, and spending time with friends. Two have been rescanned. A teenager who still suffers from symptoms showed little improvement. But in another, whose symptoms have largely resolved, the images looked nearly normal. The other three will be rescanned this summer.

Of course, he can’t be sure those who improved did so because of the treatment. That’s why he is hoping for resources to establish a Long Covid clinical trial that would include a placebo group.

Like other doctors, Buonsenso has been inspired by Long Covid patients who have lobbied hard for treatments and shared successes and failures on social media. Marta Esperti, a 34-year-old graduate student now living in Paris, is one of them. Struck by COVID-19 more than 2 years ago, she wasn’t hospitalized but months later struggled with fatigue, breathlessness when walking, persistent fever, joint pain, and other symptoms. Yet bloodwork and other medical tests, such as x-rays of her lungs, were largely normal. Esperti kept pushing for answers. Then, in the spring of 2021, “I received a call from the pulmonologist saying, ‘Listen, I want you to do another test.’”

Esperti was one of the first Long Covid patients in Europe to receive a lung SPECT-CT scan, and it looked just like the compromised lungs of the sick children Buonsenso scanned later. “My right lung is almost completely blue,” she says. She posted the images on Twitter, where they were shared by thousands of people.

Like Buonsenso, Esperti’s doctors believe damage to tiny blood vessels and minuscule clots are the culprit. The theory of persistent microclots gained further credence in the summer of 2021, when Resia Pretorius, a physiologist at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, and her colleagues reported in Cardiovascular Diabetology that such clots could linger in the blood of Long Covid patients. Her team found signs of excessive blood clotting in 11 people with Long Covid, but not in healthy people or another group with type 2 diabetes, whom they used for comparison.

One challenge facing clinicians keen to hunt for microclots in blood is that detecting them is a laborious process, although Pretorius is working to make it more accessible to doctors. SPECT-CT scans identify clots indirectly, based on blood flow abnormalities.

The work by Pretorius and others fits an emerging pattern in which the biology of acute and chronic COVID-19 appears to overlap. Early in the pandemic, doctors recognized blood clots as a signature of early, severe illness: Many hospitalized patients had clots in their lungs, brain, and elsewhere. Even people with milder disease were at heightened risk of heart attacks and strokes in the weeks following infection.

“The two diseases”—acute COVID-19 and Long Covid—“aren’t very different,” posits David Lee, an emergency medicine doctor at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. He suspects microclots explain many chronic symptoms. At least 70% of Long Covid patients have respiratory problems, he estimates, and at least 30% suffer from dysautonomia, in which abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system disrupt heart rate, breathing, and digestive function. Many suffer from fatigue and what’s often called “brain fog.” Tiny clots in the brain could explain cognitive troubles, Lee notes; or clots may kill small fiber nerve cells and drive dysautonomia.

But solid evidence that microclots cause Long Covid symptoms is still lacking. To learn more, Lee launched a study of 20 Long Covid patients with respiratory symptoms and 20 healthy volunteers who had COVID-19 and recovered. The participants will undergo SPECT-CT scans to see whether any of them have disrupted lungs. If abnormalities on the scans are unique to some with Long Covid, that could be a step toward identifying subsets of patients.

“I oscillate in my excitement” for different Long Covid theories, says David Putrino, a neurophysiologist and rehabilitation medicine specialist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He is studying several possible mechanisms for why symptoms can linger or even worsen after an infection. Right now, his enthusiasm for the microclot hypothesis is running high, thanks in part to a collaboration with Pretorius and others; that team has preliminary data to suggest the amount of microclots in blood correlates with the severity of some Long Covid symptoms, such as cognitive deficits.

Putrino is now running a small study of Long Covid patients with microclots in blood plasma, testing whether apheresis, which filters blood and reinfuses it, improves their symptoms. Any results, though, will be “very preliminary,” he cautions. Apheresis can “filter out lots of things in the blood” that also might fuel symptoms.

Persistent virus

The idea that lingering virus might be a Long Covid culprit solidified for Proal in late 2021, thanks in part to an autopsy study that captured her attention. Researchers from the U.S. National Institutes of Health described in a preprint their analysis of tissues from 44 people who had been infected. Most had died from COVID-19 but five had mild or even asymptomatic infection and had succumbed to something else. All 44 still harbored viral RNA in their body, including in the brain, muscle, gut, and lungs. Many organs also had evidence of replicating virus.

The study established that replicating copies of the virus could persist. But it didn’t focus on people with Long Covid, making it difficult to establish a link.

Other studies are now trying to do that by comparing those with Long Covid and other cohorts, including people who have recovered from COVID-19. In one, gastroenterologist Herbert Tilg at the Medical University of Innsbruck set out to look for molecular traces of virus in the gut, a favorite hunting ground for researchers studying SARS-CoV-2. That’s because the gut is far easier for doctors to access than many other organs, such as the lungs or the brain, and is thought likelier to harbor virus than blood, which tends to clear a pathogen more quickly.

Tilg recruited 46 people who’d had COVID-19 months earlier, 21 of whom had at least one symptom of Long Covid. All the volunteers had inflammatory bowel disease and were scheduled for routine endoscopies. (Most were in remission.) Tilg used that procedure to gather extra tissue samples and probe for signs of the coronavirus. The bottom line: All of those with Long Covid symptoms harbored viral RNA or, in some cases, viral proteins. Among those who’d recovered from acute COVID-19, 11 had traces of virus, too, whereas another 14 had no virus that Tilg could find. He and colleagues published their study in May in Gastroenterology.

“Our paper is a clinical observation,” he stresses, and doesn’t prove that lingering virus is harming people. That said, Tilg was surprised by the presence of persistent virus in people with Long Covid symptoms, and its absence in many previously infected people who felt fine.

Now, researchers like Tilg want to understand how the small amounts of virus that linger in tissue reserves such as the gut behave. Tilg and Saurabh Mehandru, a gastroenterologist and immunologist at Mount Sinai who was among the first to find signs of persistent virus in COVID-19 survivors, haven’t been able to culture the virus from gut tissue in the lab—which would confirm that the virus is replicating. But such culturing can be tough, even in acute cases of COVID-19.

A key question is whether lingering virus is driving illness in Long Covid patients. Proal and her colleagues are trying to definitively tie persistent virus to Long Covid symptoms—or determine that the theory doesn’t hold water. She is working with Mehandru and with Putrino, who has access to a cohort of more than 1000 Long Covid patients who could participate in new studies. The team is planning colonoscopies to look for virus in intestinal cells, and also wants to scrutinize the activity of immune cells that populate the region. Are these cells in a heightened state of alert, for example, suggesting the viral particles are setting them off? In some patients, Mehandru has noted immune responses in the gut, but says the work is preliminary.

Ideally, this deep dive into the gut’s biology would be paired with a clinical trial examining whether antiviral drugs can beat back Long Covid symptoms. Participants could be studied before and after a course of antivirals, to see whether they clear any signs of virus in their gut and whether that matches up with changes in symptoms. “That’s the trial I’d love to see happen,” Putrino says.

So far it hasn’t, to the frustration of many in the Long Covid research and advocacy communities. “The patients are really, really desperate,” says Francisco Tejerina, an HIV researcher at Gregorio Marañón Hospital in Madrid, who has detected viral RNA in the stool, urine, and blood plasma of people with Long Covid. He worries about people experimenting on their own with therapies, including antivirals, that may be useless, or worse, dangerous. “They want something now,” he says. “I understand that.”

Haywire immune system


As the pursuit of blood clots and viral fragments intensifies, a third track is both intersecting with those themes and making inroads on its own: the immune system, which some researchers believe could help bind together disparate observations. One idea, Phetsouphanh says, is that in some COVID-19 patients an immune system revved up and destabilized by the coronavirus attack may be unable to reset itself to idle.

To test that, he and colleagues gathered blood from 31 Long Covid patients, who all had fatigue or other characteristic symptoms at least 3 months after infection, and analyzed dozens of immune markers. “We were uncertain what we would find,” Phetsouphanh says. The result was striking. Essentially, Long Covid patients had an immune system in constant high alert, the team reported in January in Nature Immunology.

White blood cells that typically recruit other cells to sites of infection were highly activated, which may explain why the patients’ levels of interferons, proteins the body makes to fight invaders, were sky high 8 months after infection. The participants also had a dearth of inactivated T cells and B cells, a population of cells that normally putters about awaiting instruction to counter pathogens. Collectively this signaled chronic inflammation, which can cause a host of health problems.

Phetsouphanh and his colleagues also found these immune signatures were unique to their Long Covid cohort: They didn’t appear in people who’d had the virus but recovered, or in those who’d been infected with different coronaviruses.

Other groups are also finding myriad immune system abnormalities long after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In January, immunologist Akiko Iwasaki at the Yale School of Medicine, neuroscientist Michelle Monje at Stanford Medicine, and their colleagues reported in a preprint that mice given the coronavirus in their nose to mimic a mild infection developed inflammation in the brain, as well as loss of myelin, which insulates nerves and helps them transmit signals. In the mice, inflammation struck the brain even though the researchers couldn’t find virus there. Furthermore, when the group compared blood samples from 48 people with Long Covid who had cognitive impairments and 15 Long Covid patients who did not, they found higher levels of inflammatory markers in the first group, suggesting chronic inflammation may be driving these neurological symptoms.

Such work highlights “how little we know about immune function,” says Putrino, who is collaborating with Iwasaki. Work like hers is “opening up this world” of immune markers that aren’t part of standard blood tests but may be critical to understanding the syndrome.

Increasingly, researchers want to fine-tune how they classify people with Long Covid, differentiating subsets based on symptoms, biology, or both. In a way, “the biggest obstacle that we are facing is we gave it one name, we gave it the name of Long Covid, which implies that it is one disease,” says Chahinda Ghossein, a physician and heart disease researcher at Maastricht University and co-leader of a 15,000-patient Long Covid study in the Netherlands. “All the studies being performed show us that it is not.”

One of the first large efforts to define subgroups, in part by testing potential treatments, will begin to enroll patients this month in the United Kingdom. Called STIMULATE-ICP (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways), it will recruit 4500 Long Covid patients. Each will be randomly assigned one of three potential therapies: an anticlotting drug called rivaroxaban, an anti-inflammatory called colchicine, or a pair of antihistamines, famotidine and loratadine. (Antihistamines can quell a type of inflammation called mast-cell activation.) The project will include imaging as well as the collection of blood and tissue samples for a biobank. Organizers also have the option of adding up to three additional treatments.

Amitava Banerjee, a cardiologist at University College London, leads the study, and his colleague Emma Wall at UCL and the Francis Crick Institute is overseeing the treatment element. Both say it’s crucial to test Long Covid therapies in trials before prescribing them en masse to patients.

“If you follow social media, you might think we’ve cracked it,” Banerjee says, referring to anecdotal reports of vastly improved Long Covid symptoms, after, say, taking anticoagulants or antiviral drugs. Those narratives can offer important clues, he says, stressing that working with and listening to patients is invaluable. (Every component of STIMULATE-ICP includes a patient advocate.) But, “We’ve got to be really humble” about what we know, Banerjee adds.

After months of delays, the trial is “close to the start line,” he says, but “we should have been there months ago.” Trials for drugs to treat acute COVID-19 were fast-tracked, while “Long Covid is joining the queue with everything else” in medicine, Banerjee laments.

Esperti’s story underscores the work to be done. She’s been taking anticoagulant drugs for more than a year, and can now work, swim, drive, and cook—all previously impossible tasks. But she still can’t run or carry heavy objects, and she suffers from sporadic fatigue. She was hit by a second bout of COVID-19 in December 2021 that left her severely debilitated, but she improved after a fourth dose of vaccine in late March.

Mysteries remain. A repeat SPECT-CT scan 3 months after she started taking the drugs showed no change in her lungs, though her lung function has improved. “I thought all I have to do is take anticoagulants” and recovery would be quick, she says. Esperti suspects that, like peeling the layers of an onion, she’s unraveled one trigger for her symptoms only to come upon another she can’t yet decode. It’s another chapter in the annals of Long Covid—a narrative researchers are doggedly trying to change.

https://www.science.org/content/article/what-causes-long-covid-three-leading-theories

When should U.S. research be stamped ‘top secret’? NSF asks for new look

 The U.S. academic community is gearing up for a new effort to convince national policymakers that the benefits of keeping government-funded basic research out in the open—and not stamping it classified—far outweigh any threat to national security from sharing scientific findings.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to hold a workshop on factors affecting the classification of federally funded research. Tentatively scheduled for the fall, the meeting is expected to revisit a Cold War-era policy that sets openness as the gold standard and says any classification of fundamental research should be kept to a minimum.

“Openness is axiomatic for scientists. But its value has not been articulated in a convincing way to the outside community,” says John Mester, CEO of the Universities Research Association, a consortium that runs several government laboratories and research facilities.

But some academic leaders caution that the effort needs to be managed carefully to prevent it from backfiring. They note that China’s aggressive pursuit of emerging technologies has prompted calls from many lawmakers to cordon off basic research on some sensitive technologies, such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and biomedical techniques that could be used to produce bioweapons. A massive innovation bill now being negotiated by both chambers of Congress could be a vehicle for such additional restrictions on scientific collaborations and open publishing.

“I think we need to approach this with some trepidation,” says Richard Meserve, the former head of the Carnegie Institution for Science and co-chair of NASEM’s science, technology, and security roundtable, a forum for academic, government, and industry leaders. “This issue comes up periodically, and previous administrations have decided that they don’t want to open up this can of worms. But the fact that NSF has asked [NASEM to do this workshop] suggests that someone in the government thinks that it needs to be looked at.”

NSF officials hope the NASEM workshop will assess whether to tweak the country’s historically open system of sharing research results to meet current geopolitical realities. “It will help us reflect on where we are now and talk with the community about ways to maintain openness and security,” says Rebecca Keiser, NSF’s chief of research security.

For the past 4 decades, striking that balance has meant minimal classification of basic research. In 1982, amid concerns the Soviet Union had expropriated U.S.-funded research to build up its military, a NASEM panel led by Dale Corson concluded that fundamental research should “remain unrestricted … to the maximum extent possible.” The Corson report paved the way for a 1985 policy statement from then=President Ronald Reagan, known as National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189), that established a policy often described as “putting up high walls around a very narrow set of technologies.”

Subsequent administrations have reaffirmed NSDD-189, saying it applies even when the country is under attack. “The free exchange of ideas [drives] innovation, prosperity, and U.S. national security,” then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in November 2001, only weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks fueled fears of more assaults from bioweapons or radioactive materials.

But minimal classification doesn’t mean none. In 2008, then- President George W. Bush alarmed many scientists by creating a new category of controlled but unclassified information, known as CUI. It has since been applied to a wide range of information collected by the federal government—including student, medical, and tax records, as well as census data—but not to the results of basic research. Barack Obama retained the CUI mechanism as president, although a 2010 executive order (13556) says classification should remain the primary means for restricting basic research.

In 2019 NSF asked Jason, an independent body that advises the U.S. government, whether the Reagan directive needed to be updated. Not really, Jason concluded in a report that also looked at ways to increase compliance with federal rules on disclosing foreign sources of research support.

The Reagan directive doesn’t define what should be classified. The CUI list, meanwhile, has grown over the years to include more than 100 categories. But “confusion reigns” over exactly what kind of information falls into some of the CUI categories, noted the Jason report, which counseled against using CUI as a tool for restricting fundamental research.

The lack of a clear definition has created a gray area between classified and unclassified research that is problematic, say those who follow the issue. “The $64,000 question is: Do we need to be protecting more things?” Wendy Streitz, president of the Council on Governmental Relations, which tracks federal policies affecting the nation’s research universities, told the NASEM security roundtable this week.

Keiser hopes the upcoming NASEM workshop will take a step toward answering that question. “The JASON report remains extremely important,” she says. “But we need to expand on its findings [by hearing from] key experts in the community.” NSF hasn’t yet decided whether to ask NASEM to do a comprehensive study, Keiser adds.

Tobin Smith, vice president for science policy at the 65-member Association of American Universities, hopes workshop participants will make the case for “why openness is so essential to U.S. innovation and national security. “I’m not sure that [Jason] got into those reasons,” he says. Publishing results not only fuels progress in U.S. science, he said, but also serves as “an early warning system” to flag important discoveries made elsewhere around the world.

The upshot of those conversations needs to be disseminated beyond the scientific community, Streitz told the roundtable. Congress, she said, “is where the message is desperately needed.”

https://www.science.org/content/article/when-should-u-s-research-be-stamped-top-secret-nsf-asks-new-look-issue

There’s a shortage of monkeypox vaccine. Could one dose instead of two suffice?

 As the monkeypox outbreak grows, the preferred vaccine to combat it is in short supply—a problem that’s only getting worse now that countries are expanding access to the vaccine. But there is a strategy that could double overnight the number of people who can be vaccinated: use a single shot instead of the recommended two.

Compelling data from monkey and human studies suggest a single dose of the vaccine—produced by Bavarian Nordic and sold under three different brand names—solidly protects against monkeypox, and that the second dose mainly serves to extend the durability of protection.

The United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada are offering the vaccine to anyone deemed at high risk of infection—for now that’s primarily men who have sex with men (MSM) who have multiple partners. The United States at first limited the vaccine to contacts of confirmed cases, including health care workers, but on 28 June also began to offer it to people at high risk of infection who had presumed exposures, which includes MSM who have had multiple partners “in an area where monkeypox is spreading.”

There’s no way to put a hard number on it, but millions of people worldwide are now eligible for the vaccine. Yet there are nowhere near enough doses of vaccine, which contains a virus called modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA), to quickly get all of them the recommended two doses, which are normally spaced 4 weeks apart.

The United Kingdom is already giving people just one shot for now, advising them that they might want the second dose if they have an ongoing risk. And some public health officials and scientists say time is of the essence for a broader vaccination campaign among high-risk people if countries hope to prevent the epidemic from getting out of hand and the virus establishing itself outside areas where it is already endemic. 

Bavarian Nordic CEO Paul Chaplin, an immunologist, also embraces the single dose plan. Studies have shown that immune responses triggered by a single shot of the MVA vaccine declines after 2 years, which is why the approved vaccine schedule calls for a second shot. But Chaplin says immune memory is so robust after a single dose that a booster given 2 years later leads to the same immune response as the standard schedule. If countries decide to use single shots now, they have a long time to add the booster and still achieve the durability benefit, he believes. “There are a lot of data to support the single shot,” Chaplin says. 

Growing outbreak

More than 5700 people in 66 countries have contracted monkeypox since early May, and the number is steadily increasing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the majority of confirmed cases are in MSM. But the virus has affected other groups as well, including a few children.

Bavarian Nordic’s product is one of two FDA-approved vaccines for monkeypox. Both were developed to target its cousin, smallpox, but animal studies suggest both protect against monkeypox as well.

One, named ACAM2000, is a modern version of the age-old smallpox vaccine, made from unmodified vaccinia virus, that helped eradicate that disease from humans, a feat WHO celebrated as complete in 1980. FDA approved ACAM2000 in 2007, and the United States has enough of it in its Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) to vaccinate the country’s entire population if there is a bioterror attack with smallpox. Some of the vaccine has been used “off label” for monkeypox in the current outbreak. But vaccinia copies itself after vaccination, which can lead to serious disease, especially in people who have compromised immune systems from HIV—which has a high prevalence among MSM—or other factors.

MVA, the virus in Bavarian Nordic’s vaccine, does not replicate in the body and is much safer, which makes it the preferred vaccine for the monkeypox outbreak. Known as Jynneos in the United States, Imvanex in Europe, and Imvamune in Canada, MVA is the only vaccine FDA has explicitly approved for monkeypox. Because monkeypox is so rare, the company had no human efficacy data when it applied for approval from FDA; the agency granted its license in 2019 in part based on studies showing the vaccine protected animals from monkeypox.

In the United States, SNS will make 56,000 Jynneos doses available to states immediately, officials said during a 28 June White House press conference. Because that’s not nearly enough to meet potential demand, the government has devised a four-tiered allocation system that prioritizes locales with the highest monkeypox rates and the largest population at high risk. Officials said they expect to receive an additional 296,000 doses from Bavarian Nordic “in the coming days.”

The European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority has purchased 109,090 doses of the vaccine—only some of which are immediately available—and is also prioritizing locations with high case numbers. (The first 5300 doses were shipped to Spain; Portugal, Germany, and Belgium are next.)

Individual countries in Europe have purchased supplies of the vaccine as well, but numbers are hard to confirm. All told, the world has about 1 million doses of the vaccine in hand, Chaplin says. Supply will steadily increase later this year. Bavarian Nordic already has an additional 1 million doses available for the United States, which still require FDA’s blessing because they were produced at a new plant in Denmark, Chaplin says, and the U.S. government today announced the purchase of another 2.5 million doses to be delivered by early 2023.

But the supply of vaccine to prevent monkeypox today “remains very constrained,” said a 15 June WHO monkeypox guidance, which encourages countries that have doses to share them with those that have limited or no supply.

The constraints are intensifying given the expanded eligibility for the vaccine. Initially, many countries followed WHO guidance and offered vaccination to only two groups. One was people who were at high risk of infection because of their occupation: health care workers, outbreak response teams, and lab workers who might handle viral samples. The other was people who had been in close contact with a known case; the vaccine can work post-exposure, ideally if given within 4 days but up to 2 weeks after contact occurs. Now, several countries are effectively offering the vaccine both as pre- and postexposure prophylaxis to anyone at high risk.

At a press conference this week announcing U.S. plans to expand vaccination, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated that two MVA doses are needed as “it takes about 2 weeks after your second dose for maximum protection.”

Faster protection

In a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, Chaplin and colleagues compared immune responses in people given either MVA or ACAM2000. With smallpox virus, levels of neutralizing antibodies are seen as a key indicator of protection, so the same idea extends to monkeypox virus. The researchers found that 14 days after a single dose, the levels of antibodies that neutralize the monkeypox peaked with MVA, at a level nearly identical to that triggered by ACAM2000. Given that the vaccines are presumed to work postexposure if given within 2 weeks of contact, this suggests that a single dose of MVA could prevent many cases of disease and slow spread.

In a 2008 monkey study led by Moss, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers compared preexposure vaccination against monkeypox from a single dose of MVA and one dose of a cruder version of ACAM2000 called Dryvax. Because MVA does not make copies of itself, the team gave it at a higher dose—similar to what’s used in the Bavarian Nordic shot today—than the Dryvax vaccine.

Both vaccines worked well, but MVA appeared to work faster. Levels of neutralizing antibodies and CD8 cells—critical immune actors that destroy infected cells—both rose more rapidly with MVA, which Moss and coworkers concluded was because it took time for Dryvax to replicate to levels that matched the initial shot of MVA. What’s more, when they injected the animals with the monkeypox virus just 4 days after vaccination, it grew less well in monkeys vaccinated with MVA.

In a statement to Science, CDC stressed that a single dose of the vaccine hasn’t been studied in any outbreak and cautioned that it is “challenging” to extrapolate from immune responses in earlier studies and protection in animal studies.

At this week’s press conference, there was no discussion of temporarily giving only one dose in the U.S. vaccination campaign. But when asked about the option by Science, Peter Marks, the head of FDA’s vaccine division, said “we’re looking into this.”

https://www.science.org/content/article/there-s-shortage-monkeypox-vaccine-could-one-dose-instead-two-suffice

New research argues drug pricing negotiations would stymie innovation

 As Democrats hammer out a revised version of their proposal to lower drug prices, new research from the University of Chicago suggests that Medicare negotiations could stymie the development of new cancer drugs — but the size of that effect is widely debated.


Cancer treatments accounted for about 49% of the pipeline making its way through the FDA now, and 27% of new approvals between 2010 and 2019, according to the UC analysis.


“No other drug classes have more drugs than oncology at any phase and, except for Phase III, cancer drugs represent around half of the total drugs,” the report states. 


Researchers warned that allowing the US government to negotiate the price of drugs on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries — a move that was part of the failed Build Back Better Act and is now part of a revised proposal, according to the Washington Post — would lead to a reduction in R&D spending and thus fewer new drug approvals.


They pegged a reduction of $663 billion in R&D spending through 2039, and 135 fewer new drug approvals. The proposal would lower annual spending on cancer R&D by about $18 billion per year, or just under 32%, the researchers reported.


Those figures are far off from previous estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office, which suggested back in November that Medicare negotiations would only result in 10 fewer drugs (out of a calculated total of 1,300 drug approvals) over 30 years.


“At a moment of remarkable progress in the war on cancer, and a renewed focus from the Biden administration on reducing the death rate from cancer, Washington should avoid drug price control proposals that will unintentionally reverse decades of progress to beat this disease,” lead author and Harris School of Public Policy professor Tomas Philipson said in a statement.


President Joe Biden reignited the Cancer Moonshot initiative back in February, setting a goal to reduce the cancer death rate by at least 50% over the next 25 years. The CDC cut the first check just a couple weeks ago, shelling out the first installment of a five-year, $1.1 billion grant to get things going.


Though the Biden administration proposed a $1.9 billion annual increase in public cancer R&D through additional funds to ARPA-H and NCI, the authors estimated that the reduction of R&D spending from price negotiations would outweigh those extra funds by 9.5 times.


“Despite the great intent of the Cancer Moonshot and congressional efforts to improve patient affordability, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices will undo any investments made to fight cancer and will instead raise cancer mortality substantially,” Philipson said.


Industry group PhRMA similarly blasted the Democrats’ drug pricing proposal, arguing months ago that the bill would “throw sand in the gears of medical progress.”


However, USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy researchers wrote earlier this month that the relationship between R&D spending and the supply of new drugs is actually quite modest.


Annual R&D budgets for PhRMA members have been on the rise, growing from $37.5 billion in 2000 to $83.0 billion in 2019. However, during the same time, the 5-year average for new drug approvals went from 36.8 in 2000, then declined for nearly a decade hitting a low in 2009 with 22 new drugs, before the 5-year average steadily increased to 44 new drugs in 2019.


Before Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) squashed hopes of passing the Build Back Better Act late last year, Democrats had never been so close to passing major drug pricing reforms.


“A Medicare negotiation is just that — a process, not a price control — a market-based approach to come to a price between purchaser, Medicare and producer,” Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) argued earlier this year.

https://endpts.com/new-research-argues-drug-pricing-negotiations-would-stymie-innovation-as-democrats-fight-for-revised-proposal/

US Supreme Court Asks Maryland to Bar Protests at Justices' Homes

 The U.S. Supreme Court’s top security officer has asked Maryland Governor Larry Hogan to enforce laws barring picketing outside the Maryland homes of high court justices, saying protests and “threatening activity” have increased.

Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley made the request in a July 1 letter to Hogan, noting that Maryland law prohibits people from intentionally assembling “in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home.”

“I am writing to request that the Maryland State Police, in conjunction with local authorities as appropriate, enforce laws prohibiting picketing outside the homes of Supreme Court justices who live in Maryland,” Curley told Hogan, according to a copy of the letter posted on the Fox News website.

Abortion rights activists began protesting outside the Maryland homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the Virginia home of Justice Samuel Alito Jr. after the leak in May of a draft opinion indicating the court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing women the right to an abortion.

The court last month issued a final opinion that did just that.

Curley reminded the governor that in May, he said he was “deeply concerned” over picketing outside justices’ homes in his state. Hogan made the statement in a joint letter with Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland seeking enforcement of a federal law barring demonstrations intended to sway judges on pending cases.

“Since then, protest activity at Justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased,” Curley told Hogan, adding that protesters have for weeks used bullhorns, chanted slogans, and banged on drums.

The letter also noted “an attempt on a Justice’s life,” an apparent reference to the arrest last month near Kavanaugh’s home of a California man armed with a handgun, a knife and pepper spray.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-07-02/u-s-supreme-court-asks-maryland-to-bar-protests-at-justices-homes

FDA will not require clinical trial data to authorize redesigned Covid boosters

 U.S. health regulators will not require companies to submit new clinical trial data on COVID-19 vaccines that target the now dominant BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants to authorize those shots, but will instead rely on studies showing the efficacy of targeting the earlier BA.1 subvariant, a top official said on Thursday.

Dr. Peter Marks, a senior official overseeing vaccines at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters the agency would also consider manufacturing data specific to a BA.4 and BA.5 vaccine, and that preclinical data from animal studies and safety data for those shots could also be available.

The FDA on Thursday recommended COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers Pfizer Inc/BioNTech SE and Moderna Inc change the design of their booster shots beginning this fall to include components tailored to combat BA.4 and BA.5. It plans to review them for emergency use authorization.

"It's very similar to what we do with influenza strain changes where there will be a couple of amino acids difference, but we don't expect any difference in the safety that we're going to see," Marks said.

He said he expects the immune response to the BA.4/5 booster shot to be similar to that seen with BA.1.

"We're very comfortable doing this, because it will help us get ahead of things," Marks said.

The FDA has directed manufacturers to launch human clinical trials to study the BA.4/5 vaccines, but said that data will be used to gauge the continued effectiveness of the boosters against new variants that may arise.

Marks said he believes regulators from other countries are seriously considering using BA.1-based vaccines, which some drugmakers have already been producing and may be available sooner.

"I will tell you that globally - just so you understand - different regulators feel different levels of comfort with this," Marks said.

He said the United States should run a wider vaccination campaign this fall than the one in the spring, when the focus was on older and other high-risk people.

"I actually think that this fall we have to go all out on our booster campaign," Marks said.

"It's going to be really critical as we move into this fall where we've seen this evolution into BA4/5, where we could see further evolution, to try to get as many people boosted as we can."

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-06-30/fda-will-not-require-clinical-trial-data-to-authorize-redesigned-covid-boosters-official